Comments on: Printer-unfriendly

Printer-unfriendly

Afroblanco — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:53:35 -0800

Could we please have a moratorium on comments to the effect of, "OH NOES I HAVE HAVE TO CLICK ON THE NEXT PAGE LINK! YOU DIRTY BASTARDS ARE TRYING TO GET AD REVENUE!!!"

Every time there's a link to an article that has no Printer-Friendly option, there's always some incredibly insightful fellow who feels the need to spout off about it. It's kind of like "this post sucks," only worse because it doesn't even attempt to address the content of the link. Furthermore, this statement presupposes that there's something inherently rotten about wanting to collect ad revenue from site content. Finally, it's just an incredibly trite complaint. I mean, really? Clicking on the "next page" link is just that much of a hassle for you? You poor poor thing. Those starving children in the Sudan have nothing on you. Anyway, it's not an original complaint, you're not adding anything to the discussion, and you probably didn't even read the full article. To wit, complaining about pagination is on par with posting "FIRST!" On my off days, I suspect people only do it because it's a cheap way to pick up favorites.

By: ook

ook — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:56:46 -0800

That'd be nice. Never happen, but it'd be nice.

Also, OMG NYTIMES REQUIRES REGISTRATION WHATEVER SHALL I DO

By: rhapsodie

rhapsodie — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:57:54 -0800

Now that ook has that taken care of, can I just bitch about article pagination in general?

I hatehatehate pagination because it tricks me into spending more time on an article than I originally budgeted: I can tell by the scroll bar how long this page is, but there's nothing worse than getting to the bottom and seeing there are TEN MORE PAGES OH MY JESUS GOD NO.

By: Rhomboid

Rhomboid — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:58:06 -0800

Which is worse: complaining about pagination when no printable version exists, or complaining because a single page/printable version exists and the poster didn't link to it?

By: Rhomboid

Rhomboid — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:00:50 -0800

Also, install this.

By: ORthey

ORthey — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:01:05 -0800

I'd prefer a moratorium on moratoria because we all know how effective they are.

Wait... crap.

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:04:13 -0800

My impotent rage is pretty much just impotent on this one.

GGGRRrraaaaaaaahh ah fuck it

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:06:44 -0800

One top ten item per page used to drive me insane too but the autopager extension for FireFox has blissfully removed this irritation.

By: box

box — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:09:50 -0800

After we get this one resolved, let's work on 'this post sucks.'

By: Rhomboid

Rhomboid — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:11:19 -0800

Er, yeah, that's the extension I meant to link to.

By: gjc

gjc — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:11:54 -0800

How about a moratorium on plug-ins, greasemonkey scripts, et al, and we all just experience things as they were intended? Or don't use crappy sites?

By: rhapsodie

rhapsodie — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:22:09 -0800

This post sucks.

By: IndigoRain

IndigoRain — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:25:36 -0800

If you don't want to install an add-on (although it is available as one), PageZipper also comes in bookmarklet form.

By: cjorgensen

cjorgensen — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:27:30 -0800

New York Times requires registration what shall we do?

Well, my answer has been to go elsewhere, which is why I don't think media is going to be making money off online content any time soon. If I can't even be bothered to sign up for a free account, then really have to give me something special to get me to pay.

And I hate the crappy was these companies paginate. Some pages have 600 words, then the next will have 1500, then the last 40. It is annoying.

By: gubo

gubo — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:28:22 -0800

Needs the moratorium tag.

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:28:30 -0800

I sprained my clicking finger.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:32:46 -0800

Nice use of the FIAMO tag.

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:34:30 -0800

Sic Transit Gloria Click Transit Moratoria

By: Greg Nog

Greg Nog — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:35:07 -0800

FRIST PSOT

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:40:55 -0800

Also, OMG NYTIMES REQUIRES REGISTRATION WHATEVER SHALL I DO

To obviate such be sure to use the New York Times Link Generator to create the hyperlink for your FPP or comment.

By: maudlin

maudlin — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:54:59 -0800

Yep, I use the NY Times link generator for their links. Works perfectly.

(Oh, and I no longer complain about Hulu and other sites that block Canadians. I use Hotspot Shield, which is not the best solution in the world -- all your traffic goes through the VPN, not just Hulu or whatever -- but it's good enough as a quick solution.)

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:03:01 -0800

Mo-ra-to-ria!
Some people ask for moratoria!
Now, Afroblanco, I adore-ee-ya...
But we don't need no mo-ra-to-ria!

Don't mean to bore-ee-ya!
I fixed that for-ee-ya!
No mo-ra-to-ria!

By: mattoxic

mattoxic — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:07:48 -0800

I've gotten around the whole thorny issue by paying Sudanese children to click the next page links for me, so it's win win. I get to read the article and it doesn't cost very much.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:23:25 -0800

Those starving children in the Sudan have nothing on you.

Now that's you've trotted them out to get on your moral high horse, what are you going to do to actually help the starving children of the Sudan?

By: Jaltcoh

Jaltcoh — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:32:58 -0800

To obviate such be sure to use the New York Times Link Generator to create the hyperlink for your FPP or comment.

No, please don't.

By: clearly

clearly — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:42:17 -0800

And yet you make us click on the "more inside" link...

By: DU

DU — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:43:19 -0800

Yay, moritoria! That's where I'm a viking!

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:44:05 -0800

OH MY GOD MORE INSIDE COULDN'T YOU JUST SAY EVERYTHING ON THE MAIN PAGE YOU MADE ME CLICK

By: hermitosis

hermitosis — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:01:20 -0800

Honestly I'm grateful for those complaints because often they keep me from even bothering to click the offending link in the first place.

By: iamkimiam

iamkimiam — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:12:58 -0800

Afroblanco, I get what you're saying. I also agree with you. But your post comes off kind of loud and ranty. It's a shame, because its probably not the best approach to achieving the kind of response you're hoping for. Just saying, in case you're wondering why this thread is already starting to turn into a CAPSfest.

By: mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey

mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:14:21 -0800

I agree with this, especially for sites that claim to present a "slideshow" when in fact it just loads an entirely new page with the next picture. That is a real bite in the shorts, y'know?

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:30:48 -0800

Afroblanco...your...loud and ranty.

Yes!!!

By: dhammond

dhammond — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:35:31 -0800

I don't say this very often, but good callout.

I can totally understand a complaint about sites that have like one paragraph or a very small bit on each page and you've got to click through a dozen times to get through something that could easily fit on a single page. But if you're someone who just complains about normal, run-of-the-mill pagination that you find with articles that are just kind of long, you're an entitled, bratty piece of shit who typifies all that is wrong with the internet (and who probably wet the bed into early adolescence).

By: grouse

grouse — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:15:08 -0800

Honestly I'm grateful for those complaints because often they keep me from even bothering to click the offending link in the first place.

This.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:17:32 -0800

Some Native American tribes believed that clicking through to the next item in a Cracked list stole your soul.

By: Item

Item — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:27:55 -0800

Some Native American tribes believed that clicking through to the next item in a Cracked list stole your soul

Could we have a moratorium on me chiming in whenever the word 'item' is used? Thanks.

By: turgid dahlia

turgid dahlia — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:39:58 -0800

I'm going drinking tonight, who's with me?

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:43:05 -0800

Do I have to click through each drink individually, or is there some sort of trough and funnel setup?

By: cortex

cortex — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:44:41 -0800

I'm going drinking tonight, who's with me?

What's with this "going"?

By: zarq

zarq — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:47:07 -0800

Honestly I'm grateful for those complaints because often they keep me from even bothering to click the offending link in the first place.

Me too. When I read Metafilter on my phone, I always read the comments on an FPP before I click through to the links. My smartphone doesn't render most web pages well, and comments usually give a decent idea of what to expect from a link.

Afroblanco, I must admit that I find this entire post rather interesting. After all, you complained about my linking to 3 Twits in an FPP yesterday. My mentioning it here isn't intended as a callout. At the time, I thought the comment you made was snarky and pointless. Snark not withstanding, after thinking about what you said I came to the conclusion that you're probably right. Under normal circumstances it would be better to link and quote a twit so people don't have to be bothered clicking through to read 140 characters or less. I explained my reasoning in the post, and I stand by that -- but in the future, I'll most likely take your advice.

What I'm getting at is I learned something from your complaint. Similarly, perhaps the "OH NOES AD REVENUE" comments you're complaining about here will teach someone something in the future.

So no, I don't think we need a moratorium. Such comments may serve a valuable purpose. However, it would probably be better to encourage people to make them with a minimum of outrage and snark. They turn people off and make it less likely that they'll listen.

By: turgid dahlia

turgid dahlia — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:53:17 -0800

What's with this "going"?

Need the exercise.

By: Mikey-San

Mikey-San — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:07:42 -0800

Can we have a moratorium on using the word "moratorium"?

By: heyho

heyho — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:08:05 -0800

I'm in. Are you flying to me, or am I flying to you? Oh, either way you slice it, it still adds up to tomorrow. Damn it!!

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:09:17 -0800

Need the exercise.

I imagine your sack needs a bit of an airing, too.

By: auntbunny

auntbunny — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:11:01 -0800

I'm curious about comments that say "This". Is it a regional thing that people actually say?

By: clearly

clearly — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:13:00 -0800

What's with this "going"?

Need the exercise.

I took the question to mean: Why haven't you started yet?

By: grouse

grouse — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:16:43 -0800

I'm curious about comments that say "This". Is it a regional thing that people actually say?

This.

By: the littlest brussels sprout

the littlest brussels sprout — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:20:07 -0800

I'm curious about comments that say "This". Is it a regional thing that people actually say?

I thought it was a Fark thing.

By: double block and bleed

double block and bleed — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:20:48 -0800

I only have so many clicks in this life and I'm not going to waste them. Won't someone think of all the entropy created by all of these extra clicks?

By: auntbunny

auntbunny — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:26:51 -0800

I've heard "yeah, that" once in a while but not "this".

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:27:31 -0800

Look, if there's like a fifty-item list and each entry on the list is a separate page, and especially if each entry is like a paragraph that takes forever to load because it's on some bullshit site with like all kinds of flash ads and related crap that wants to fuck your browser like an animal, everyone hates you and your post sucks and the solution is to not suck anymore and so: the shaming. I thought we were all in agreement on this and some might say, ha ha, that we were all on the same page? But I guess not

Bah. More drinking!

By: bunglin jones

bunglin jones — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:29:42 -0800

sites that claim to present a "slideshow"
I'm still kind of surprised that no one's come up with a better term than "slideshow" for a series of still images. It's as if nostalgia has clouded everyone's memories of how eye-gougingly painful it was to go round to Aunt Loretta's place for "some nibbles and a slideshow of our holiday".

By: evilcolonel

evilcolonel — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:46:46 -0800

Since we're airing pet peeves, what about this latest meme in which someone responds to an outrageous statement with "what", always omitting the question mark, and sometimes hilariously misspelling "what?"

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:49:08 -0800

wart.

By: Item

Item — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:53:54 -0800

wharf

By: Rhomboid

Rhomboid — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:04:07 -0800

Like most memes you can blame 4chan for that too.

By: evilcolonel

evilcolonel — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:06:21 -0800

Above is NSFW. Don't blame me, I didn't do it! #catchphrase

By: zarq

zarq — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:12:30 -0800

wot wot

By: Rhomboid

Rhomboid — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:12:39 -0800

Oops, sorry about the lack of warning. This thread is adjacent to the tumblelog one (which is heavily peppered with NSFWery) in my Recent Activity page and I guess I thought it therefore didn't need the disclaimer.

By: heyho

heyho — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:24:08 -0800

Rhomboid, thanks for the education. I just learned what "whatchild" means. I'd heard it, but I've never SEEN it, see.

By: onya

onya — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:30:11 -0800

Is the "don't want to be that guy" thing something that people actually say? I've only ever encountered it on the internet.

By: pracowity

pracowity — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:34:59 -0800

Hwæt.

Oh. I guess I'm showing my age.

By: vincele

vincele — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:42:34 -0800

And while we're on the subject, where did this new thing come from? By new thing I mean quoting someone using italics and then, before adding one's own two cents, new thing adopter inserts, to indicate agreement, and for dramatic effect (?), the one, simple word...

This.

People just started doing it one day, around the time 'what' made its appearance. Its style or purpose, if any, puzzles me. Mainly I just want to know where it came from.

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:42:54 -0800

We need to be able to paginate threads.

By: Item

Item — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:45:05 -0800

I'll be damned if I let any thread of mine become pregnated.

By: Navelgazer

Navelgazer — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:53:07 -0800

I recently made a comment somewhere ( I don't even remember) where I went into a rant about some like or dislike of mine, and Afroblanco killed the resulting fire by explaining that if you knew me (as he does) you'd understand that any inflammatory language was actually fairly innocuous there. I'd like to return the favor by saying that I read this post with Afroblanco's voice in my head, and that while this is certainly irritating to him (and it is to me as well) this is how he talks to a group full of people he respects, and with a smile on his face. This isn't OMG outrage, and please don't take it that way.

That said, I might be one of the only people who actually likes pagination (within reason.) I keep an eye on my scrollbar, ad if I get to the end of a page of something I'm enjoying, seeing the "next" button just means that there's another whole page I'll enjoy. I'm ninja-trained to ignore the ads, so what do I care?

This complaint clogs the blue, is unoriginal, adds absolutely nothing to the conversation except for unneeded bile, and is as petty as it gets when you think about it: "Oh god I had to click why did you make me click things I had to move my finger to the button and it hurt so BAAD!" Seriously?

The only reason it gets any play at all is because it kicks at a very easy target. While I hate ads as much as the next person, they are, again, ignorable. Moreover, they're the business model which keeps things free of charge to the reader. Are we seriously so reactionary that we can't accept getting something for nothing anymore, but have to get pissed that the content generator might be getting money from someone else to make up for it? I just don't get it.

By: Afroblanco

Afroblanco — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:54:55 -0800

After all, you complained about my linking to 3 Twits in an FPP yesterday.

I did that because I think it's ridiculous to link to a single sentence, which is what you're doing when you link to a tweet. Obviously we disagree on this point.

By: Kattullus

Kattullus — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:56:27 -0800

klangklangston: OH MY GOD MORE INSIDE COULDN'T YOU JUST SAY EVERYTHING ON THE MAIN PAGE YOU MADE ME CLICK

Y'know, in my worst moments I completely agree with this sentiment.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:03:29 -0800

Well hell, if we're having a War on Bilious, Unoriginal, and Easy Target Cloggery, the bar for posting MeTas is going to have to be raised waaay up.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:10:05 -0800

Y'know, in my worst moments I completely agree with this sentiment.

And then it's all longboats filled with Viking raiding parties.

By: the aloha

the aloha — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:20:44 -0800

And then it's all longboats filled with Viking raiding parties.
i, for one, welcome our overlords.

By: mattoxic

mattoxic — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:28:05 -0800

Jesus Ubu, again with the fucking Vikings

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:47:53 -0800

oh, is it already beer o'clock over your way?

By: jouke

jouke — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:55:39 -0800

I also want moratoria on things I don't like.
But Brezhnev and Carter never discussed them.

By: mattoxic

mattoxic — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:58:13 -0800

oh, is it already beer o'clock over your way?

Since just after 8

By: ODiV

ODiV — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:43:08 -0800

How about a moratorium on "winning the thread". They don't even do that shit on Something Awful anymore. Just favourite the damn comment.

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:47:12 -0800

And then it's all longboats filled with Viking raiding parties.

In your dreams!

By: Item

Item — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:54:32 -0800

oh, is it already beer o'clock over your way?

Tell us, Ubu, when is it not beer o'clock in Oz?

By: Mikey-San

Mikey-San — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:54:38 -0800

Pretty sure quoting a post and only adding "This." predates Fark posters doing it by a long stretch of time. It might've started on SA--it doesn't seem like a 4chan-type thing to do.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:12:43 -0800

But your post comes off kind of loud and ranty. It's a shame, because its probably not the best approach to achieving the kind of response you're hoping for.

This.

By: Item

Item — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:19:48 -0800

But your post comes off kind of loud and ranty. It's a shame, because its probably not the best approach to achieving the kind of response you're hoping for.

This.

what

By: Elmore

Elmore — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:21:04 -0800

What

wut

By: mattoxic

mattoxic — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:44:14 -0800

Ubu is from Sydney where rugby league is king, in Melbourne where Skivvy-wearing chardonnay-drinking book readers like me prance from bar to bar- we have Pims-Number-1-Cup-O-Clock

By: Item

Item — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:08:29 -0800

/inserts sheep-fucking joke here, as you & the Kiwis are pretty much the same to us

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:09:42 -0800

You think you're so sophisticated with your skivvies & books & chardonnay & football teams that actually win games, and aren't just some kind of elaborate promotional vehicle for Barry Hall's upcoming boxing career.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:12:23 -0800

you & the Kiwis are pretty much the same to us

i parsed that as "the same as us" and i'm sticking to that interpretation; one of those quirks of ameringlish, like "could care less".

By: Jofus

Jofus — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:15:40 -0800

Everytime I see the tag FIAMO, I can't help but think of a Flamenco dancer posing, arms in the air and a rose in his teeth; at the end of a raucous gypsy ballad; frozen in some 80's postcard nightmare.

"FIAMO! OLE!"

That is all.

By: little e

little e — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:38:35 -0800

Where did the longboat thing originate?

By: fleacircus

fleacircus — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:45:07 -0800

OMG, I hate it TOO when I have to use the mouse wheel, scrollbar, space bar, arrow key, PageDn, and/or eyeball muscles to scan past stuff. I wish those lazy motherfuckers would stop bitching about interfaces already.

By: mattoxic

mattoxic — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:47:26 -0800

Barry Hall doesn't drink Pims Number One Cup

By: auntbunny

auntbunny — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:47:33 -0800

Is the "don't want to be that guy" thing something that people actually say?

Real Men of Genius commercials celebrate Him.

Jofus, I too think FIAMO is festive. But hearing the words tweet or twitter make me want to destroy something.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:54:11 -0800

Where did the longboat thing originate?

Norway, most likely.

By: fleacircus

fleacircus — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:58:43 -0800

While we're at it, I seem to notice a lot of threads where one or more posters chip in with nothing to add to the conversation beyond feeble demonstrations of their Australian national identity. It's kind of like jonmc relating everything to his coolness, but jonmc was kinda cool, whereas these guys are merely Australian.

Also, I've been noticing that some MeFi users (not all, but enough to cause a problem), are constantly turning threads into some kind of "laughter-filled chucklefest." This makes it annoyance for those of us who would also like to contribute "jokes", or more importantly, tackle the deadly serious business of scenting out the exact ratio of racism or sexism going on in any post or comment.

I request moriatoria on these things, too.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:59:46 -0800

Barry Hall doesn't drink Pims Number One Cup

no, i don't think he does. that kind of effete drink suppresses homicidal neck-snapping tendencies.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:05:56 -0800

whereas these guys are merely Australian.

piss off. we're just having fun & communing over post-work beers on a friday evening, while you're still stuck probably around midday.

By: gman

gman — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:06:27 -0800

you know ubu's got no respect for you when he reverts back to the lower case.

By: dirtynumbangelboy

dirtynumbangelboy — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:08:10 -0800

By: gman

gman — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:08:58 -0800

trees.

By: Item

Item — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:22:03 -0800

while you're still stuck probably around midday

Yeah, midday Saturday! Burn!

Note: I have no idea how international time works.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:26:32 -0800

no, no, no. Americans must be back on Friday sometime - on the other side of the international dateline, roundabout Kiribati way. maybe even early Friday morning. that's why our Mondays are such fucking slow days on MetaFilter...y'all are out enjoying Sunday.

I also have no idea how international time works.

By: gman

gman — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:34:40 -0800

While we're at it, I'd like to mention that I hate wet blankets. They're useless.

By: cgc373

cgc373 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:40:35 -0800

I'm really tired. It's four forty Friday morning in Portland, Oregon on the west coast of the U.S. It's nine forty Friday evening in Ipswich, Queensland.

By: cgc373

cgc373 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:49:10 -0800

Wet blankets are good for smothering fires.

By: cgc373

cgc373 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:50:01 -0800

And they're probably a fairly effective if somewhat indirect form of contraception.

By: zarq

zarq — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:51:34 -0800

Afroblanco: Obviously we disagree on this point.

Uh, no we don't? Pls reread my comment above again. I agreed with you.

By: Dr Dracator

Dr Dracator — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:52:03 -0800

I was going to say smothering people, but fires are also good.

By: Lemurrhea

Lemurrhea — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:29:23 -0800

Y'know, I always find it interesting when people bitch about this sort of thing (splitting articles onto multiple pages to increase ad revenue).

I have a question for all of you who hate it:

Where, exactly, do you think the money that pays for the writers of these articles comes from?

Investors who mistakenly think that the ad revenue will make them money, and then throw good money after bad until they live in penury, at which point the website goes under.

By: mattoxic

mattoxic — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:46:19 -0800

I get my flash Friday fun on Saturdays, and I'm like yeah, so, flash Friday fun was yesterday and it was shit.

By: little e

little e — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:54:29 -0800

I'm American and I have no fucking idea what day of the week this is.

By: gman

gman — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:00:24 -0800

Why would you? Everyone's unemployed.

By: Plutor

Plutor — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:26:33 -0800

Some previously proposed moritoria:

xkcd
"Mefi's own"
The Wire
April Fools Day jokes
Questions
"FTW"
"Get off my lawn"
Harry Potter
Pirates
[more inside] cuteness
Tax questions
YouTube
Ann Coulter
Winning the thread
Contagious Media
"teh"
New users
US politics, and again, and again
Moratoria (this happens a lot in moratorium threads, which inevitably leads to moratoria on moratoria on moratoria)

By: the littlest brussels sprout

the littlest brussels sprout — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:56:40 -0800

I would like to propose a moratorium on "Blue" comments where the poster is clearly not a shill. Pretty please?

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:58:28 -0800

Aww, I missed the drinking cause I was composing poorly-spelled Zelda script treatments before I passed out in the chair.

You know, like every other night.

By: hermitosis

hermitosis — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:59:44 -0800

Where, exactly, do you think the money that pays for the writers of these articles comes from?

As a freelance writer, I wouldn't mind getting paid less if it meant having my work posted in a format that didn't actively discourage people from reading the whole thing.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:05:19 -0800

But if you're someone who just complains about normal, run-of-the-mill pagination... you're an entitled, bratty piece of shit

My, how standards have fallen.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:07:51 -0800

Wow. This seems to really piss you off, Afroblanca. You poor poor thing. Those starving children in the Sudan have nothing on you.

By: Spatch

Spatch — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:14:38 -0800

I agree with Afroblanco. Every time I have to click through to get to more content, I realize that's one less click that my mouse has left in it. And when your mouse runs out of clicks, where are you then? WHERE ARE YOU THEN?!

Anyway, I'm out of here. Time to play through Diablo 2.

By: vincele

vincele — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:30:47 -0800

A sincere thanks to Mikey-san for finding and answering my question amongst all the dick-slinging.

By: cortex

cortex — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:08:14 -0800

The only reason it gets any play at all is because it kicks at a very easy target. While I hate ads as much as the next person, they are, again, ignorable. Moreover, they're the business model which keeps things free of charge to the reader.

Well, that's not really quite right.

The annoying thing, for a lot of people, is not the mere presence of ads, and the annoyance at ads in this context is an indirect thing.

The main annoying thing is being forced to click through multiple pages for not a whole lot of content. It's a minor UI gripe, but it's not invented from whole cloth: you incur load time and search time in order to keep reading something you were doing a perfectly good job of reading in the first place before that "next --->" button volunteered itself as Official Reading Interrupter.

There is no reward for clicking next. It is a speedbump to consuming the content the reader is, ostensibly, being encouraged to read in the first place. It's a small but in aggregate significant devolution of the UI experience.

Now, if the motivation for that speedbump, that explicit UI hit, were something reader-positive or at least reader-neutral, it'd be less frustrating (is the page content so large that serving it in chunks will make server performance significantly better for the user or keep the server from falling over? is the piece so many thousands of words long that breaking it down over two or four pages will make navigating it a little more manageable?), that'd be a little less goat-getting.

But when the motivation for making the reading experience worse for most readers is short-sighted money grubbing—"more pages = more pageviews = more ad revenue [we hope!]"—it kind of goes out the window. You fucked up people's reading experience for cash. That's a bullshit move.

That's why a lot of people bitch about it.

It's the same reason many people bitch about obnoxious or intrusive ads: not just because Ads Are Bad, but because Ads Can Be Fucking Annoying. I say this as someone who doesn't run adblock and has no problem ignoring static, unintrusive ads, but for the most part I just avoid the hell out of sites that use frequent rollover ads or expanding shit or super-blinky gifgasm stuff.

Actively choosing to make your user experience significantly worse because you think it's the key to success is such a grating bit of business logic that it's actually a little frustrating to see that ignored for the sake of taking a lazy swipe at readers' alleged desire to "kick at a very easy target", as if they are kicking blindly and falsely.

By: puckupdate

puckupdate — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:26:48 -0800

It can be very (con't)

By: puckupdate

puckupdate — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:26:54 -0800

annoying.

By: puckupdate

puckupdate — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:28:02 -0800

stupid anchors

By: cjorgensen

cjorgensen — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:46:16 -0800

Are a whole crapload of comments being removed from this thread?

By: Afroblanco

Afroblanco — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:51:33 -0800

But when the motivation for making the reading experience worse for most readers is short-sighted money grubbing—"more pages = more pageviews = more ad revenue [we hope!]"—it kind of goes out the window. You fucked up people's reading experience for cash. That's a bullshit move.

Yeah, and still I just don't get why this is such a big deal. I mean, if an article is interesting enough, I think it's worth clicking on a link to bring you to the next page. Or are we all so lazy that the action of clicking on a link and waiting a couple seconds is just TOO MUCH WORK?

Don't get me wrong, I prefer a scrollbar to pagination any day of the week. I don't think pagination adds to the viewing experience, but I don't really think it detracts either.

Or how about this -- I'll put it another way. Say there's a really great article that you think is awesome and want to share with the site. But (DUN DUN DUN!) there is no printer-friendly link. Do you post it anyway? Or do you let yourself be cowed by the whining voices that say, "Oh no, I have to click on NEXT, that's just so much work!" I would argue that if you hold back on the post because of pagination, you actually suck at life and deserve to lose at everything you do.

Anyway, I just think pagination is a really stupid complaint. It's like "this post sucks" only worse. And it's just so mechanical. You know that, no matter how good an article is, no matter how many (or few) pages it has, some terribly observant person is going to post "THOSE GREEDY BASTARDS ARE TRYING TO GET AD REVENUE!" It's like clockwork. And sometimes it becomes a minor derail on its own.

And really, why is trying to maximize ad revenue a problem? You compared it to intrusive Flash ads, but I don't think the comparison is valid at all. Animated ads (at least for me) are completely distracting and prevent me from actually reading the content -- which is why I use a flash blocker. Clicking on next is such a minor inconvenience that it's not even worth mentioning.

However, I do think there's one exception to this -- Forbes' slideshows. And mind you, I'm not complaining about all slideshows, just theirs. Reason being that if you take too long to read one of their "slides," it'll automatically advance to the next one. And yes, you can hit "pause," but the moment you advance to the next slide, the automatic advance thing is somehow turned on again! Now THAT is a pain. But your regular garden-variety pagination? Seriously? If this is your biggest problem in life, we should all be so lucky.

By: cortex

cortex — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:10:35 -0800

Yeah, and still I just don't get why this is such a big deal. I mean, if an article is interesting enough, I think it's worth clicking on a link to bring you to the next page. Or are we all so lazy that the action of clicking on a link and waiting a couple seconds is just TOO MUCH WORK?

It's a matter of degree, and a matter of industry precedent.

If the article is interesting enough, it's totally worth click on a link for the next thousand excellent words. Most of the people complaining about this aren't raw about well-written, long-form multi-thousand-word articles that happen to break across a few pages.

For the next item, though? For the next few paragraphs? Or clicking five or ten times? That's just silly bullshit.

And that it's not just a random decision that the occasional one-off site here or there is experimenting with but rather (as people have pointed out in apparent defense of the thing) a Business Model means that it's an aggregate annoyance, and is seemingly being taken by new players as gospel. It's what some people think is not merely a way you can do things if you're willing to accept the compromised user experience and yadda yadda yadda, but The Way To Do Things.

So that's the thing. If I rarely tripped across an aberrant site that did this, it'd be one thing. That this is how a bunch of sites do it, seemingly more as time goes on, and not out of random experimentation but with full intentionality and the fuck with the readers: that's why it's an annoyance. This is just another chapter in user-unfriendly commercial webmucking. It's pop-up ads and crazy-blinky gifs and browser-resizing and so on, this is just another notch in that backwards-ass design-fuckery belt.

And really, why is trying to maximize ad revenue a problem?

In a vacuum? It's not! Go for it!

In practice, it's a problem because it compels bad decisions and leads to a degradation of user experiences—not only in the individual cases where some site or another first decides to make a user-unfriendly design decision, but in general as that promotes an arms race among all those sites willing to sacrifice user experience for another potential slice of profit.

There's a reason Metafilter doesn't look like some hyper-monetized trainwreck, and it's not because Matt's just unfamiliar with these exciting money-making design concepts.

You compared it to intrusive Flash ads, but I don't think the comparison is valid at all. Animated ads (at least for me) are completely distracting and prevent me from actually reading the content -- which is why I use a flash blocker. Clicking on next is such a minor inconvenience that it's not even worth mentioning.

I'll take a click of "next" over a flash strobe any day, but then I'd take a pinch on the arm over a kick in the nuts, too. I'd rather not be pinched or nutted, though, and I have very little sympathy for the sorts of folks who think I'm supposed to be impressed that they only did one or the other.

Or how about this -- I'll put it another way. Say there's a really great article that you think is awesome and want to share with the site. But (DUN DUN DUN!) there is no printer-friendly link. Do you post it anyway? Or do you let yourself be cowed by the whining voices that say, "Oh no, I have to click on NEXT, that's just so much work!" I would argue that if you hold back on the post because of pagination, you actually suck at life and deserve to lose at everything you do.

Is it a great article? Is it something you think is worth a post? Post it. Does it have annoying pagination? People might comment on it. Get over it. I'm not sure the "you suck at life" approach to this is helpful in any case, and I think it's a little weird that you'd so aggressively attack the abstract figure of a poster buckling under criticism of their post, dude.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:16:43 -0800

I don't think pagination adds to the viewing experience, but I don't really think it detracts either.

Convincing people that they're wrong rarely works on the internet.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:30:24 -0800

~~Convincing people that they're wrong~~ reasserting your opinion without any actual counterargument rarely works ~~on the internet~~ anywhere.

Yes, it detracts, according to virtually everyone else. Afrobianco doesn't mind? Good for him. But "quit bitching about something that doesn't bother me, I don't care about your stupid pointless opinions"? Fail.

By: Afroblanco

Afroblanco — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:39:36 -0800

Yes, it detracts, according to virtually everyone else

Who is this virtually everyone else you speak for? In a thread for an article that has pagination, there's usually 2-4 people complaining about it. Everyone else is typically discussing the content. Besides, I think I've offered a number of counterarguments.

I'm not sure the "you suck at life" approach to this is helpful in any case, and I think it's a little weird that you'd so aggressively attack the abstract figure of a poster buckling under criticism of their post, dude.

Okay, that was a bit of hyperbolic humor on my part. All apologies to anyone who thinks that I was honestly wishing them a terrible life. My point stands, though -- I don't think people should hold back on a post just because it has pagination. And I don't think it's useful to try and shame the OP for posting something that has pagination.

I do think there are reasons to hold back on a post, i.e. if it sucks. Criticism is warranted in these cases. But I think pagination is a silly complaint. And I guess I'll just leave it at that.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:41:27 -0800

Seriously? If this is your biggest problem in life, we should all be so lucky.

As are in-thread gripes about pagination.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:45:03 -0800

> Besides, I think I've offered a number of counterarguments.

And yet your argument basically comes down to "I don't mind it, therefore you shouldn't object." Which is ridiculous.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:59:42 -0800

But I think pagination is a silly complaint. And I guess I'll just leave it at that.

129 comments in.

By: Potomac Avenue

Potomac Avenue — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:28:22 -0800

O come on guys. It is a pretty exciting link and the link submission button said that it had not been submitted previously.

By: dg

dg — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:26:23 -0800

I'm really tired. It's four forty Friday morning in Portland, Oregon on the west coast of the U.S. It's nine forty Friday evening in Ipswich, Queensland.
That's probably not the best comparison - it's still 1983 in Ipswich.

By: 7segment

7segment — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:50:41 -0800

Regret that I'm in so late.

In a thread for an article that has pagination, there's usually 2-4 people complaining about it. Everyone else is typically discussing the content.

Right. These comments are a little less than insightful, but, as this thread has shown, they evidence a legitimate shared by many users. Perhaps instead of calling these users out, you might be thankful they only spring from a small minority of users who a rather wide-spread view.

Or, instead of suggesting that the mores of the site be readjusted so as to delegitimize such comments, you suggest they're adjusted to make a "warning - annoying pagination" qualification on the FPP.

By: Plutor

Plutor — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:53:13 -0800

Is there a term for the rhetorical technique where you characterize any complaint as the worst possible thing the complainer can imagine?

A: Man, needlessly paginated news articles suck.
B: What about those AIDS orphans in Africa? How do you think they feel?

Because I feel like that's going on a lot in this thread, and I wish I knew what to call it.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:55:07 -0800

Because I feel like that's going on a lot in this thread, and I wish I knew what to call it.

Fucking horsehit?

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:56:28 -0800

Shit, shit! Fucking horseshit!

Shit.

By: vapidave

vapidave — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:08:35 -0800

I'm curious about comments that say "This". Is it a regional thing that people actually say?
posted by auntbunny at 11:11 PM on July 2 [+] [!]

My personal theory is Rush Limbaugh and his zombie fans ruined the perfectly good "ditto" by associating it with their ilk.
In fact, now that I think about it "This"ing needs to stop if only because when you do it you are, consciously or not, shying away from the dark shadow cast by Rush Limbaugh.

(And you look like an ass, but I'm less concerned with that.)

By: mediareport

mediareport — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:11:38 -0800

Has anyone mentioned that one benefit to a public shaming re: idiotic, time-wasting extra-click strategies is that site owners often track referrals and might actually see the complaints?

Also, afroblanco, sometimes I see stuff I've written here and step back far enough to realize what I've really written is "Damn I need a blow job STAT" and I rearrange my priorities to get one, which I've found really really helps with the online complaining thing.

Honestly, I think perhaps this might be one of those moments for you.

By: fleacircus

fleacircus — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:13:06 -0800

Get complainy on the internet, arrange a blowjob.

I don't know, mediareport. Sounds like positive reinforcement to me.

By: Afroblanco

Afroblanco — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 07:54:36 -0800

Honestly, I think perhaps this might be one of those moments for you.

Then why don't you blow me?

By: mediareport

mediareport — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:39:21 -0800

Yeah, that's the right response. Bravo.

By: gman

gman — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:48:07 -0800

At least Afroblanco could spouse you first.

By: fleacircus

fleacircus — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:07:41 -0800

[ HEY KIDS, TRY WHEETABIX! IT'S BACK AND IT'S DEEEE-LISH! ]

fleacircus in mefisex shocker pg 1 of 10

I'll blow you, Afro.

<Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next>
--
THIS POST WAS MADE ON MY BLACKBERRY

(c) fleacircus enterprises